Then why do we pay more for health care per capita than people who live in countries with nationalized health care?

Because the United States does not ration care. Other nations employing a socialized form of healthcare, by necessity, must ration care because for something like one's health, the demand will always be greater than the supply.

An excess of demand over supply causes high prices, not low prices. So it canot be (and demonstrably is not) a shortage of care in more civilized countries that makes healthcare cheaper.

As for "rationing", any form of "rationing" which in no way restricts the access of any individual to goods or services is not in fact "rationing". Perhaps you should think of a new word for it, such as "unrationing" or "antirationing".

Granny, those quotes you are attributing to me are not mine, save the first quote about rationing care. The rest is someone else (Artemis?)

I don't think people can quite appreciate the monolithic task for the US, the 3rd most populous nation on earth, with the largest amount of debt in human history, to go towards a universal health care system.

The majority of taxes already go towards human and health services as it is, dwarfing even defense.

The United States government pays more taxes in to medicine than any other nation on earth, without having gone to a national healthcare system. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are blights on the economy, and continually prove disasterous.

If the majority of Americans don't like healh care in America now, what on earth makes them think they will like it any better?

There is no question that the current system is broken in America, and that something needs to be done. Instead of socializing medicine and instead of bankrupting companies through employer-paid insurance, would a Medical Savings Account be the most equitable and efficient means of health care for everyone?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction."  Blaise Pascal

The United States government pays more taxes in to medicine than any other nation on earth, without having gone to a national healthcare system.

Pretty pathetic, wouldn't you agree? See where "free markets" for health care has gotten us? The quote above is one of the best arguments for nationalizing our health care. It is the only way that costs will be brought down.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security are blights on the economy, and continually prove disasterous.

How much more would it cost to house and care for retired senior citizens if the entire program was privatized? A lot more, wouldn't it? Medicare and Medicaid are the only two programs that have kept prices down. If it weren't for these two programs health care prices would be even higher and be even more of a blight on our economy. And what would we do with senior citizens who have no income? Throw them out on the streets?

There is no question that the current system is broken in America, and that something needs to be done. Instead of socializing medicine and instead of bankrupting companies through employer-paid insurance, would a Medical Savings Account be the most equitable and efficient means of health care for everyone?

That doesn't get to the root of the problem: the bloated cost of health care. Also, those who make very little will not have enough in their savings accounts, not to mention college students who may have not worked a day in their lives. We need a single payer system, if not a full nationalization of the health care system.

In the thread "Health care reform almost at the finish line... correction: it's finished", Taq asked:

"would the Tea Party movement be ok with a defense budget reduction of $200 billion to pay for a $100 billion health care bill?"

I have yet to hear a republican/neo-con/fiscal-conservative answer this question. Seeing the US spends (wastes/graffs) on its military about as much as the rest of the world COMBINED, would you favor Taq's proposal?

Pretty pathetic, wouldn't you agree? See where "free markets" for health care has gotten us?

The free markets have brought innovation and the most technologically advanced medicine in the world. What hasn't produced anything is the amount of government dollars in to a system it cannot afford. The only way a government-run medical program can reduce cost is to reduce care. When government tries to buy health care for everyone, the logical way to cover everyone is to limit what services it pays for. Take the egalitarian ethos to the extreme, and youll have government to prevent people from buying supplemental care with their own money, to prevent a two-tier system.

This is why the Mayo Clinic, one of the best hospitals in the world (and non-profit), scoffs at Obamacare. It is also why Canadians love having Americans in their hospitals, because they're actually going to get money from the insurance companies.

How much more would it cost to house and care for retired senior citizens if the entire program was privatized? A lot more, wouldn't it?

No, less. Competition forces companies to produce the highest quality for less. If they don't, they won't survive.

Medicare and Medicaid are the only two programs that have kept prices down. If it weren't for these two programs health care prices would be even higher and be even more of a blight on our economy.

Medicare and Medicaid are nearly bankrupt. This simply highlights why and how a nationalized healthcare won't work. It can't, it's simple economics. I can provide documentation for every nation that uses that system and how much problems come with it. France, England, Canada, etc, all the citizens like the healthcare, but it is a system in peril. They like the idea of it. And who wouldn't?! The problem is that it is so over-idealized, it is not feasible in reality without taking drastic measures.

And what would we do with senior citizens who have no income? Throw them out on the streets?

Like all people, it's your responsibility to be responsible. If you don't get insurance for your car and you get in to an accident, should it be everyone else's responsiblity to hold your hand and wipe your ass?

It's simple. Free health care really isn't free, is it? No, it isn't, because you pay taxes. The money that goes towards FICA and SSI can go towards a health savings account and a 401k. That's what responsible people do.

I mean, if you don't pay your mortgage, should you get to live in the house because you need housing? No. If you don't work for food, should you eat on the basis that you need food to survive? No. That's not how it works in the cold and unforgiving wild, so why would the opposite be true now?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction."  Blaise Pascal

quote:"would the Tea Party movement be ok with a defense budget reduction of $200 billion to pay for a $100 billion health care bill?"

I have yet to hear a republican/neo-con/fiscal-conservative answer this question. Seeing the US spends (wastes/graffs) on its military about as much as the rest of the world COMBINED, would you favor Taq's proposal?

Well, first of all, I cannot comment on what the Tea Party would do. I am not affiliated with them. Your figures that the US spends more than all nations combined is a gross exaggeration. Yes, they spend more per capita than any other nation, but not combined.

I also agree that military expeditures need to be seriously reigned in. One proposal I made on a recent paper was the closure of virtually all overseas bases (not embassies, but military installations). The amount of US bases abroad is absurd. Not only is it cost ineffective, but it sends the world the wrong message.

But to answer Taq's question, the majority of US taxes ARE spent on health care now. So I hardly see why throwing more money in to a pit of uselessness would be advantageous at all.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction."  Blaise Pascal

The only way a government-run medical program can reduce cost is to reduce care.

That's false. For example, the VA system (a government run hospital) provides the same care at 20% less cost. Hospitals are very ineffecient, and right now there is no incentive to become more effecient. Also, having the best tech doesn't mean anything if it has to be rationed according to wealth.

No, less. Competition forces companies to produce the highest quality for less. If they don't, they won't survive.

Then why is it so expensive? Private companies are competing for government contracts and the costs are through the roof.

Medicare and Medicaid are nearly bankrupt. This simply highlights why and how a nationalized healthcare won't work. It can't, it's simple economics.

1 million americans are forced into bankruptcy each year due to medical bills. People actually have to choose between life and bankrupting their family. The problem here is the health care system, not nationalization or government programs.

Like all people, it's your responsibility to be responsible.

So what do we do with the people who are not responsible, or lose their life savings through no fault of their own (such as having to pay medical bills after the insurance companies deny them coverage)? Just let them die in the streets?

I mean, if you don't pay your mortgage, should you get to live in the house because you need housing? No. If you don't work for food, should you eat on the basis that you need food to survive? No. That's not how it works in the cold and unforgiving wild, so why would the opposite be true now?

We are a moral people, are we not? Conservatives claim that we are a christian nation, so shouldn't we be helping the least fortunate in our society as Jesus commanded? Or should we turn our backs on the very people who built this nation in the last century?

But to answer Taq's question, the majority of US taxes ARE spent on health care now. So I hardly see why throwing more money in to a pit of uselessness would be advantageous at all.

Health care is useless? We have to pay for it one way or another, through insurance companies, out of pocket, or through taxes. Insurance companies are driven by profit, not patient health. Insurance companies ration care based on their bottom line, not what is best for the patient. If you want to talk about a pit of usefulness just look no further than the multi-million dollar salaries that insurance company CEO's make.

No, I did not write that the US military spends "MORE". Rather, I wrote that the US spends "ABOUT AS MUCH". (Perhaps you can work on your reading comprehension skills sometime.)

So I hardly see why throwing more money in to a pit of uselessness would be advantageous at all.

To you, health care is useless? Really?

Hyro, what is your take on the following Eisenhower quote? Specifically about children born in poverty, the people who have financial catastrophies (E.g. Enron employees with their pensions stolen) or health crisis in their lives:

Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

That's false. For example, the VA system (a government run hospital) provides the same care at 20% less cost.

The VA is terrible! I'm a veteran, and the VA is a last resort.

Hospitals are very ineffecient, and right now there is no incentive to become more effecient. Also, having the best tech doesn't mean anything if it has to be rationed according to wealth.

Hospitals do have incentives to being better than a neighboring hospital because it brings in revenue. Where there is no incentive, is under the nationalized health care system. The only incentive is getting rid of you.

Then why is it so expensive? Private companies are competing for government contracts and the costs are through the roof.

1 million americans are forced into bankruptcy each year due to medical bills. People actually have to choose between life and bankrupting their family. The problem here is the health care system, not nationalization or government programs.

Yes, you are right. There does need to be some kind of public option available, because there are some circumstances beyond our control. The issue is that under Obamacare, the Public Option plan will cover approximately 2% of the population. And of that, they cap the amount of care a family is entitled to.

The greatest issue, seems to me, is the feasibility factor. It's all good and well to say how something theoretically works, and it's another thing to demonstrate how it would work. Given the size and population of the United States, how would it work?

Just let them die in the streets?

Nobody dies in the streets. It's against the law not to treat someone in an emergency. This already happens now, and the government pays for it.

We are a moral people, are we not? Conservatives claim that we are a christian nation, so shouldn't we be helping the least fortunate in our society as Jesus commanded? Or should we turn our backs on the very people who built this nation in the last century?

I don't care what conservatives or liberals say. I don't take cues from them, and I'm not religious. Turn our back on who, though?

I guess I'm not seeing what you are seeing. You are pointing to a moral imperative. What moral imperative do you speak of?

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction."  Blaise Pascal

Health care is useless? We have to pay for it one way or another, through insurance companies, out of pocket, or through taxes. Insurance companies are driven by profit, not patient health. Insurance companies ration care based on their bottom line, not what is best for the patient. If you want to talk about a pit of usefulness just look no further than the multi-million dollar salaries that insurance company CEO's make.

The entire world is incentive driven, including the government. Insurance companies and the government have vested interests in making you well, so that you'll stop bleeding them dry. Why the government would be any different from an insurance company is beyond me. The outcome is the same. Someone else is paying for you to get better. Both have an interest in your health.

Now, you say insurance companies ration care. They can only ration what they are contractually obligated to ration. They can't just say, "We won't cover you for having cancer," it has been established that you were never covered for cancer, otherwise they face a losing lawsuit.

And really, to me, corporatism is simply an extension of the government-mentality -- I'm so powerful, I do what I want.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction."  Blaise Pascal

Granny, those quotes you are attributing to me are not mine, save the first quote about rationing care.

If you go back and try reading my post a little more carefully, you'll see that I did not attribute those quotes to you.

The rest is someone else (Artemis?)

Don't blame AE! The rest is from the article you linked to. As I said;

Granny writes:

I just want to run you through the relevant portion of the article you linked to and have my say on how I think the arguments pan out in a UK NHS setting.

You cited the article. I read the relevant portion. I thought it had a lot of insane scaremongering bullshit in it (especially for a site that appears to pride itself on being balanced). I thought I would tell you why I considered it to be off the mark. Okay?

Did you even read the article you linked to? Because you don't seem to recognise it when it's quoted back to you.

I don't think people can quite appreciate the monolithic task for the US, the 3rd most populous nation on earth, with the largest amount of debt in human history, to go towards a universal health care system.

Fair point. I do appreciate that it wouldn't be easy. There would be staunch opposition. It couldn't happen overnight. No-one is suggesting otherwise as far as I know. In truth, America probably isn't ready for universal socialised medicine. I just happen to think that it's a bit of a shame, that's all.

The majority of taxes already go towards human and health services as it is, dwarfing even defense.

And still people are having to sell their homes to pay for medical care. I just can't understand why Americans aren't more angry about that.

If the majority of Americans don't like healh care in America now, what on earth makes them think they will like it any better?

Did I mention that no-one loses their house to pay for healthcare under the British system? The strengths of universal health care should be enough to sway people. Of course the kind of dishonest extreme right-wing demagoguery that is criticised in the "open letter" is going to create a major barrier to understanding those strengths. Watching US politicians and pundits telling crazy lies about our NHS has been an annoying spectacle for us Brits over the last few months. Which brings me to something you very definately did say;

Hyroglyphx writes:

France, England, Canada, etc, all the citizens like the healthcare, but it is a system in peril.

Is it? That's news to me. Funny, you'd think that our media might have mentioned it if the NHS were on the brink of closure.

To be clear, I am certainly not accusing you of lying here, but I do think that you are mistaken. The NHS is not in peril. The NHS is in crisis. It's always in crisis. That is its natural state. There will always be more medical interventions than cash, that's just the nature of modern healthcare. The NHS has lasted sixty years. It will still be there in another sixty. Even if it has to be cut back, it will still be around for a long time to come, believe me.

There is no question that the current system is broken in America, and that something needs to be done. Instead of socializing medicine and instead of bankrupting companies through employer-paid insurance, would a Medical Savings Account be the most equitable and efficient means of health care for everyone?

Perhaps. I am not saying that universal healthcare is the only viable option. What I am saying is that there is no "rationing" involved in such a system. I am saying that the article you cited had a lot of unreasonable nonsense in it. I am also suggesting that perhaps you don't understand how how socialised medicine works as well as you think you do, or you wouldn't say these things.

No, I did not write that the US military spends "MORE". Rather, I wrote that the US spends "ABOUT AS MUCH".

It's not even close. That's a very large exaggeration to assert that it spends about as much as the whole word combined. Source

To you, health care is useless? Really?

Please don't misinterpret what I said. These government programs are useless. You say the system is broken, yet I provide evidence that the US government spends more on health care than anything else, by leaps and bounds. What has it produced, if not this broken system?

Hyro, what is your take on the following Eisenhower quote?

quote:Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, represents, in the final analysis, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

It's a good quote. Did you miss where I specifically stated, in no uncertain terms, where I wanted military expenditures to be reigned in?

The military industrial complex (like most government programs) is a bloated system that overburdens the common taxpayer who is just trying to survive.

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction."  Blaise Pascal